Date: October 23, 2023
To: Public Works and Sustainability Commission
From: Department of Public Works
Subject: LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LPI) POLICY AND
IMPLEMENTATION
TITLE:
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING POLICY IMPLEMENTATION OF LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVALS (LPI) AS A TRAFFIC SAFETY MEASURE.
SUMMARY:
In response to resident requests regarding crosswalk safety, specific requests for Leading Pedestrian Interval(s) (LPI) at signalized crosswalks, and ongoing implementation in other cities, City staff explored the potential to implement LPIs at City-controlled traffic signals with signalized pedestrian crossings. An LPI is a signal timing function which displays a brief 3- 7 second “WALK” indication for crosswalks before the parallel traffic light turns green for drivers. By establishing the crosswalk right-of-way and allowing pedestrians to cross before parallel vehicular traffic, visibility and yielding behavior increases. LPIs have been implemented at intersections along PCH by Caltrans within the City of Redondo Beach, which has allowed local roadway users to familiarize themselves with this safety enhancement. Staff believes that LPIs could be implemented on a corridor by corridor basis administratively in accordance with Caltrans Traffic Safety Bulletin 21-01: Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Implementation Guidelines (Attachment A) and context-specific engineering judgement. Therefore, staff recommends a discussion regarding whether to allow the administrative implementation of LPIs as a potential traffic safety measure where feasible and is seeking the input of the public and the Public Works and Sustainability Commission. With the support of this Commission, staff would advance the matter to City Council for their consideration.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The City of Redondo Beach regularly receives requests to improve crosswalk safety at signalized intersections. Pedestrians often cite concerns with drivers not yielding the rightof-way to pedestrians using crosswalks, even when pedestrian signals are active. One proven countermeasure to improve crosswalk safety is the Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI). By providing 3-7 seconds of time for pedestrians to enter the intersection and cross, pedestrians can better establish their presence in the crosswalk, which increases visibility, reduces conflicts, and increases the likelihood of drivers yielding to pedestrians. Caltrans Administrative Report
has published LPI Implementation Guidelines (Attachment A) which are available for use by local agencies. Staff proposes following this guidance if LPIs are implemented within the City. Furthermore, AB 2264 requires LPIs, accessible pedestrian signals (APS), and detectors to be included upon first placement and replacement of state-owned/operated traffic signals (Attachment B). While AB 2264 does not apply to locally-owned/operated traffic signals, Caltrans is required to comply for signals in their jurisdiction. This is why LPIs have been and will be implemented at signalized intersections on PCH (SR1).
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) found that this treatment could reduce pedestrian-vehicle crashes at intersections by 13%. The majority of pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries occur at intersections. Locations that tend to benefit the most from LPIs include intersections with long crosswalks, substantial setbacks for vehicular limit lines, higher volumes of older adult pedestrians and students, a high number of vehiclepedestrian collisions, and locations with limited visibility.
Potential downsides of installing LPIs could include minor increases in driver delay due to decreased green time, although the separation of right-turning drivers from pedestrians in time would offset this somewhat.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY AND COST
If approved, staff propose implementing LPIs on a corridor-by-corridor basis administratively, focusing first on corridors managed by LA County through their Traffic Signal Synchronization Program (TSSP). Based on Caltrans’ guidance, staff propose adding LPIs on crosswalk legs that cross major streets and/or streets with more than one approach lane in any direction. LPIs could also be considered at minor street leg crossings (or any signalized crossings) based on resident feedback, collision history, intersection geometry, visibility, or other engineering factors.
Based on discussions with Public Works staff, all signalized intersections controlled by the City with pedestrian signal heads are compatible with the implementation of LPIs. LPIs would only be installed at crosswalk legs that are already signalized and striped. Initial candidate corridors for implementation include Artesia Boulevard, Aviation Boulevard, Manhattan Beach Boulevard, and Torrance Boulevard, since these corridors’ signal timings are controlled by LA County and changes would come at no cost to the City. Other corridors like Prospect Avenue, Catalina Avenue and Grant Avenue will be evaluated and implemented as resources allow.
The cost to implement LPIs is very low, since this would only be a signal timing software change that could be implemented by staff and the City’s on-call traffic signal maintenance consultant. Staff estimates the cost to change traffic signal timing settings to be less than $3,500 per intersection.
ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE:
1. Recommend staff advance to the City Council consideration and implementation of Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) pedestrian signal timing changes on a corridor-by-corridor basis as a traffic safety measure.
2. Do not support the recommendation from staff.
3. Other actions as determined by the Public Works and Sustainability Commission.
COORDINATION:
Coordination and preparation of this report took place within the Public Works Department.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Caltrans LPI Implementation Guidelines Memo
2. Caltrans Default LPI
Prepared by:
Ryan Liu, Transportation Engineer
Submitted by:
Ted Semaan, Public Works Director
~v4-~
State of California California State Transportation Agency
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
M e m o r a n d u m Making Conservation
a California Way of Life
To: DISTRICT DIRECTORS Date: September 2, 2021
From: RACHEL CARPENTER JASVINDERJIT S. BHULLAR
Chief Safety Officer Chief
Division of Safety Programs Division of Traffic Operations Subject: TRAFFIC SAFETY BULLETIN 21-01: LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LPI)
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
This bulletin announces the establishment of the Guidelines for Implementing Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI), attached. The LPI is a signal-timing tool effective in reducing vehicle-pedestrian conflicts hence making pedestrians less susceptible to fatal and serious injuries. This guideline incorporates the scope and benefits of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) proven safety countermeasure. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) staff should follow these guidelines to assess and implement LPI at signalized intersections that encounter a large number of pedestrian-vehicle crashes, have high pedestrian crossing and vehicle turning volumes, have a long crossing distance across multiple lanes, cater to vulnerable (young and aging) populations and have limited or restricted visibility due to geometry and/or obstructions.
Why it Works: LPI gives pedestrians the opportunity to
enter an intersection 3 to 7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. With this head start, pedestrians can better establish their presence in the crosswalk before vehicles have priority to turn. LPI provides the benefits of increased visibility of crossing pedestrians, reduced
conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, and
increased likelihood of motorists yielding to pedestrians.
Crash Modification Factor: FHWA studies have shown a reduction in total pedestrian-vehicle crashes at intersections by 13%.
Source: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/lead_ped_int/ “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Attachment 1 - Caltrans LPI Implementation Guidelines
■
■
■
■
■
DISTRICT DIRECTORS
September 2, 2021
This guidance is available for use by local agencies; it is critical that they are encouraged to implement LPI at candidate locations, as 64% pedestrian fatalities and 75% pedestrian serious injuries in California occurred on local roadway network over the 10-year period of 2009-20181. Sites and strategies should be selected for LPI implementation based on engineering judgment. This guidance focuses on safety for pedestrians and vulnerable populations; and is applicable for both reactive and systemic safety improvement projects.
LPI specifically addresses Strategic Highway Safety Plan’s “Intersections” and “Pedestrian” Challenge Areas by providing an easy and inexpensive countermeasure that can be incorporated into pedestrian safety projects and become routine practice. Implementing LPI is an excellent strategy to realize the multi-modal vision and achieve goals of enhancing pedestrian safety throughout California with a goal to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries to zero, as outlined in these supporting policy documents:
California Transportation Plan 2050
Caltrans Strategic Plan 2020-2024
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) 2020-2024
Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure
Toward an Active California-State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan If you have questions regarding the Guidelines for Implementing LPI, please contact your district traffic operations experts or Russ Wenham, Traffic Engineering Specification Specialist, Office of Safety Systems and Devices, Division of Safety Program at (916) 217-0031 or by e-mail at <[email protected]>.
Attachment
Guidelines for Implementing Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 1 Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), July 2019. Accessed August 11, 2021 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”
Janice Benton
Paul Chung
Safety Programs
(acting)
DISTRICT DIRECTORS
September 2, 2021
c: Cory Binns, Deputy Director, Maintenance and Operations Deputy District Directors, Maintenance
Deputy District Directors, Traffic Operations
, Deputy Director (acting), Project Delivery
Jeanie Ward-Waller, Deputy Director, Planning & Modal Programs , Chief , Division of Design
Ramon Hopkins, Chief, Division of Construction
Dee Lam, Chief, Division of Local Assistance
Sergio Aceves, Chief, Division of Maintenance
Monica Kress-Wooster, Deputy Division Chief, Traffic Safety, Division of “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” • •
lb/trans
Guidelines for Implementing
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
INTRODUCTION
Since intersections are where vehicles and pedestrians are most likely to interact and where most pedestrian injuries occur, the Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) strategy is an important tool to realize the multi-modal vision in the “Toward an Active California-State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan” and achieve goals of the 2020-2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) to improve traffic safety throughout California with a goal to reduce traffic fatalities to zero. LPI is a relatively simple and inexpensive countermeasure that should be incorporated into pedestrian safety action plans and policies and become routine practice.
LPI is one of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Proven Safety Countermeasures to reduce pedestrian-vehicle crashes at intersections by 13%1. An LPI is a signal timing function which displays a brief (3-7 second) advance WALK indication for the crosswalk before the traffic light turns green. LPI helps pedestrians begin their crossing before parallel traffic is given a green indication, thereby establishing their presence in the crosswalk ahead of turning traffic, increasing their visibility and encouraging drivers to yield right-of-way to pedestrians.
The purpose of this LPI Implementation Guidance is to provide direction about incorporating LPI into pedestrian signal timing at potential/candidate intersections on the State Highway System involving intersections with pedestrian presence. LPI is not required at all signalized intersections; this document provides guidance to analyze where LPI is useful and how it should be applied and is not a substitute for or replacement of engineering judgment. Caltrans’ Division of Safety Programs staff are available to advise staff, local agencies and consultants on the implementation of this guidance.
Figure 1 : Typical 4-way Urban Intersection
with Pedestrian Crosswalk
Figure 2 : Pedestrian crossing the street
during WALK signal
1 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/lead_ped_int/
• •
lb/trans
Guidelines for Implementing
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
GUIDANCE
Caltrans should utilize LPI as a countermeasure at appropriate locations, based on engineering judgment, while following these guidelines and selecting sites and strategies based on intersection characteristics and considerations outlined below.
While LPI is typically used to address conflicts with right turns on two-way streets, or with left turns on one-way streets, it can be useful in addressing left turn conflicts on two-way streets as well.
Restricting Right Turns on Red (RTOR) in addition to LPI can help better control conflicts with rightturning vehicles. Approaches with little or no opposing traffic, such as a T-intersection or a low volume street, can use LPI to affect drivers’ yielding behavior to pedestrians.
It is preferable for intersection approaches to have crosswalk markings, Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS), and pedestrian countdown signals before LPI is implemented. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) Section 4E.06 offers guidance for consideration of APS when LPI is used. Using LPI with APS will provide indications for persons with disabilities. If LPI is used without accessible features, pedestrians who are visually impaired may begin crossing at the onset of the vehicular movement, which defeats the purpose of LPI.
CA MUTCD Section 4E.06 also provides guidance to consider prohibiting turns across the crosswalk during the LPI. As evident from the review of existing studies2, RTOR prohibitions contribute significantly to the effectiveness of LPI. The RTOR prohibition would ensure that right turning vehicles waiting at the red light are not entering the pedestrian right-of-way during the LPI. In situations where RTOR prohibitions significantly affects vehicular capacity, engineering judgment should be used in determining whether operating the LPI without RTOR prohibitions is still beneficial. To address potential conflict between RTOR and pedestrians during the LPI while still providing RTOR capacity at other times during the cycle, it may be appropriate to use a no RTOR blank-out sign during the LPI.
Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians by defining and delineating paths on approaches within signalized intersections. High-Visibility crosswalks can be considered in combination with LPI for intersections with no crosswalk markings. CA MUTCD Section 3B.18 provides guidance on crosswalk markings.
In some locations, LPI may not be necessary for pedestrians to establish themselves ahead of turning traffic. This can be true at approaches with very wide nearside crosswalks, or when a substantial setback exists for the vehicle limit line. Also, the presence of protected pedestrian 2 Saneinejad, S. , and Lo, J. . Leading Pedestrian Interval: Assessment and Implementation Guidelines. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2519, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2015, pp. 85–94.
•
li1/tran5· ·
Leading Pedestrian Interval
"No~Tlffl on Reef
-W~ siJna1 is 5 s hebe green ttaftic sqel.
Pedeui.wl starts Cf'06SSlg and becanes visible -=, N aiwf". ~ ' '
\,,~ ~--
~lin 1,""" lntO the c~
when11gnMnmsg,ee<1far
Guidelines for Implementing
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
movements such as exclusive pedestrian phase (pedestrian scramble) may render LPI unnecessary as there are no vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. While implementing an LPI might improve the safety of pedestrians crossing the street, consideration of the tradeoffs associated with them should be made. Particularly at intersections with short cycle lengths, an LPI on one or both crossings can have a significant effect on green time and could result in increased congestion. While safety should guide any recommendations, engineering judgment must be exercised when making signal timing changes that will affect a wide variety of users across multiple modes.
Figure 3 : How LPI helps pedestrians to establish themselves (Source: Toronto LPI Guideline)
COSTS AND BENEFITS
Costs for implementing LPI are very low, when only signal timing alteration is required. LPI requires reprogramming the traffic signal to accommodate the advance pedestrian interval. In rare cases, signal controllers may need to be upgraded. The cost associated with LPI can range from $200 (controller setting changes only) to $1200 each (pedestrian/vehicle study, retiming analyses and incorporating associated setting changes)3. Installing a new signal can range 3 Safety Evaluation of Protected Left Turn Phasing and Leading Pedestrian Intervals on Pedestrian Safety, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-HRT-18-044. Washington, D.C.
• •
lb/trans
Guidelines for Implementing
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
from $40,000-$100,0004. The cost of a marked crosswalk can range from an average of $750 for a striped crosswalk to nearly $2,600 for a high visibility crosswalk5. The baseline estimated cost to furnish and install an APS unit on an existing pole is $1000 and a typical quadrant intersection would require eight units. So, the cost of retrofitting a four-legged intersection to include APS on all four crosswalks would be approximately $8,0006. In many instances, an intersection may require additional work that increases the cost of the installation.
FHWA's Handbook for Designing Roadways for the Aging Population7 recommends the use of LPI at intersections with high turning vehicle volumes. LPI can provide the following benefits:
Increased visibility of crossing pedestrians
Reduced conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles
Increased likelihood of motorists yielding to pedestrians Enhanced safety for pedestrians who may be slower to start into the intersection In an FHWA study8, annual dollar benefit from reduced crashes was determined to be $41,707 per intersection and a benefit-cost (B/C) ratio ranging from 1:207 to 1:517 if only the basic LPI adjustments were made. These results suggest that LPI, even with conservative assumptions on cost, service life, and the value of a statistical life, can be a cost-effective countermeasure for reducing pedestrian crashes at signalized intersections.
SELECTING SITES FOR LPI IMPLEMENTATION
LPI can be installed across systems of signalized intersections to improve pedestrian safety.
Where to incorporate LPI can be prioritized to maximize limited resources after considering several primary factors:
Collision history: A review of a minimum 3 years and up to 5 years of collision data for intersections with multiple crashes or a history of severe injury and fatal crashes should be a priority. The information from Conflict Analysis9 can also be used to supplement crash data. A conflict is an observable situation in which two or more road users (including pedestrians) approach each other in space and time to such an extent that there is a risk of collision if their movements remain unchanged unless an evasive maneuver is 4 http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=12 5 http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/engineering/marked_crosswalks.cfm 6 New York City Department of Transportation Accessible Pedestrian Signals Program Status Report, November 2014. https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-aps-program-status-report.pdf 7 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/older_users/handbook/aging_driver_handbook_2014_final%20.pdf 8 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/18060/18060.pdf 9 Traffic Conflict Techniques for Safety and Operations: Observers Manual, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-IP-88-027, January 1989.
• •
lb/trans
Guidelines for Implementing
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
undertaken. The purpose of conflict analysis is to determine the degree of different types of conflicts between motorized vehicles and pedestrians. Collision history is a measure of the safety of an intersection, and repeated interactions between pedestrians and vehicles can warrant an LPI. Crash history can also help in identifying locations prone to pedestrian-vehicle crashes.
Pedestrian crossing volumes: Districts may look for pedestrian volumes exceeding traditional pedestrian signal warrants when considering LPI. The estimated exposure (product of pedestrian and turning traffic volumes) is another factor for consideration.
The exposure allows the volume criteria to be satisfied in a variety of conditions, intersections with moderate turning traffic and high pedestrian volumes, as well as locations with excessively high turning traffic and moderate pedestrian volumes. Also, AM, Mid-day, and PM peak hour exposures can be evaluated separately to consider high levels of pedestrian activity during particular hours of the day. Vulnerable populations: Districts can prioritize LPI where school-aged children or older adults are expected to cross. These pedestrians may enter the crosswalk more slowly than other pedestrians.
One-Way streets or at T-intersections: At intersections where left-turning vehicles are not typically expected to yield to oncoming vehicles, LPI may be useful to increase yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk.
Intersection visibility: LPI may be prioritized where the visibility of a crosswalk is limited or restricted. Limited sightlines may exist between turning traffic and pedestrians starting their crossing on the corner due to street furniture, other obstructions, or geometry.
SIGNAL-TIMING FACTORS
Incorporating LPI will involve signal-timing modification and may consider the trade-offs associated with each alteration, based on engineering judgement. Some of the parameters to be considered are:
Minimum duration: The minimum duration of an LPI is defined by the CA MUTCD Section 4E.06 as being at least 3 seconds. Districts should refer to the CA MUTCD for guidance on LPI duration. The goal is to give the pedestrians opportunity to establish themselves in the intersection ahead of turning traffic.
• •
lb/trans
Guidelines for Implementing
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Delay: On congested approaches where an LPI is being considered, a reduction in green time will further exacerbate congestion. Consideration may be given to reducing the cross street split to add green time back to the congested approach, which could lead to no net loss of green time on the congested approach. When rebalancing the splits, consider the effects on coordination, and adjust the signal offset accordingly. If the pedestrian signal is actuated, LPI will only delay vehicles when there is pedestrian presence.
Cycle: When implementing an LPI at intersections with short cycle lengths (e.g. 60-75 seconds [s]), consider increasing the cycle length. An increased cycle length may mitigate transit delay concerns. LPI on one or both crossings can have a significant effect on green time and could result in increased congestion. For example, at an intersection with a 60s cycle, 4-second yellows and 1-second all-reds, a 4-second LPI for both crossings will result in a 16% reduction in available green time to vehicles. This reduction in green time can increase delay for transit on a given approach. If the signal is part of a coordinated system, changing the cycle length may impact adjacent intersections in the same system.
Signal coordination: When implementing an LPI in a coordinated system, consideration of the signal offset should also be made. If there is a coordinated platoon of vehicles arriving at the intersection, the offset should be adjusted (if possible) so they arrive on green, not during the LPI. These types of setting changes are particularly important on corridors where the signals have been set for a consistent travel speed, such as one-way coordinated arterial corridors. Additionally, implementing LPI at only one location on a coordinated street can create a bottleneck to the progression bandwidth along the corridor. The bottlenecks should be reviewed to see how they could affect overall corridor progression.
Signal phasing: Consideration may be given to the signal phasing prior to recommending an LPI. On a two-way street with a leading protected-permissive left turn phase, an LPI should not be used for the crosswalk to the left of the left turn movement. If an LPI is used in this situation, the delay in the start of opposing traffic may encourage left turning drivers to continue to turn during the start of the permissive portion of the left turn phase, conflicting with pedestrian crossing during the LPI. If the length of the signal phase is governed by pedestrian crossing times, instead of vehicle demand, LPI can be easily implemented.
Guidelines for Implementing
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
GUIDANCE FOR TYPICAL INTERSECTIONS
The following case examples are meant to provide guidance on implementing an LPIat several typical intersection types. These examples and recommendations are provided as guidance and are not a substitute for, or replacement of, engineering judgment. Signal Operations should be consulted to learn about unique challenges of specific location before implementing LPI.
Case 1: Major Arterial and Major Arterial
The intersection of two major arterial streets can present challenges to pedestrians crossing them, due to factors such as long crossing distances across multiple lanes, the high likelihood of turning vehicles, and high vehicle volumes. LPI for all 4 crossings can be useful in addressing turn conflicts between pedestrians crossing and turning traffic.
An LPI can potentially reduce pedestrian crashes at an intersection with multiple turning lanes where the line of sight from the inside turning lane to the pedestrians is blocked by bigger size vehicles on the outside turning lane.
Where to Use:
LPI for such crossings should be considered. On approaches with transit service (if present), consideration should be given to the trade-offs between addressing turning conflicts and potential transit delay.
LPI should be
considered for all
4 crossings 111111111 ~ ,, 11 I I I I I 1\
-
~- -- -- -- -- -- 1--• -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- _,
·-
" 111111111 -- 11 I I I I I 1•1
Source: SFMTA
,..
lb/trans·
~ Figure 4: Typical intersection of two major arterial streets
•
li:dtrans· ·
LPI Recommended
Crossing Major Street
=tLi
I
I
I 11111
I 11111
~
I
l ~ ...,.....--
=t= Minor Side Street
I
I
LPI Crossing Side
Street Optional
Major Street
Guidelines for Implementing
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Case 2: Major Arterial and Minor Collector
Intersections of a minor collector with a major arterial can present potential challenges for people crossing the major arterial. These challenges can include long crossing distances and increased exposure to turning vehicle conflicts. This increase in exposure to turning conflicts is due to the likelihood that vehicles on the minor street approach will turn onto the major street.
At many of these intersections the side street split is governed by the pedestrian crossing time, which typically results in a longer green time than needed for vehicle demand. On these approaches, LPI will not affect vehicle capacity significantly, while providing pedestrians crossing the major street with an opportunity to establish themselves in the intersection ahead of turning traffic. Additionally, an LPI for pedestrians crossing the major street would likely benefit the majority of pedestrians crossing, as the major street usually has more than half of the cycle’s split, meaning pedestrians wanting to cross the major street will likely queue up and be ready to take advantage of the LPI.
An LPI for pedestrians crossing the side street, needs to be weighed against possible tradeoffs.
In general, most traffic on a major street will drive through, not turn. This means the likelihood of the first vehicle turning is low, and the effectiveness of an LPI is reduced. Major streets usually have transit service, and are often congested, meaning reduced green time could increase transit and vehicle delay.
Where to Use:
An LPI for pedestrians crossing the major street is recommended. An LPI for pedestrians crossing the side street can be considered if engineering judgment determines it would address a potential collision pattern.
Source: SFMTA
Figure 5: Typical intersection of a major arterial and a minor collector
• •
lb/trans·
ONE WAY
•
-. -.
-. -.
Guidelines for Implementing
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Case 3: One-way and One-way
Intersections of one-way to one-way streets can present potential challenges for pedestrians crossing the legs of the intersection where turns take place. These intersections are typically arterial to arterial connections, which means there is a reasonable likelihood that the first vehicle will turn. For left turns in particular, due to the lack of opposing traffic and the potential for the drivers’ reduced visibility of pedestrians crossing on the left due to vehicle’s windshield pillar obstruction, an LPI can help pedestrians crossing the street establish themselves and be more visible to drivers. Since one-way streets are typically timed for progression, consideration should be given to signal offsets when implementing an LPI.
Where to Use:
An LPI may be recommended for such crossings.
LPI Recommended
for all 4 crossings
Source: SFMTA
Figure 6: Typical intersection of two one-way streets
• •
lb/trans·
LPI Recommended
Crossing Parallel
with Stem of T
--
--
--
--
LPI Crossing
Stem Optional
I I
I
I I
I I
Guidelines for Implementing
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Case 4: T-intersection
T-intersections present potential conflicts between vehicles on the stem approach and pedestrians crossing parallel to the stem, as all vehicles on the stem approach must turn either left or right leading to high turning volumes. An LPI can help by allowing pedestrians crossing parallel to the stem of the T to establish themselves before turning vehicles are released.
Where to Use:
An LPI is recommended for pedestrians crossing parallel with the stem of the T. An LPI for pedestrians crossing the stem of the T should be considered if engineering judgment determines it would address a potential collision pattern.
Source: SFMTA
Figure 7: A typical T-intersection
Guidelines for Implementing
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Case 5: Entrance/Exit Ramp and Major Arterial
The intersection of entrance or exit ramps streets with a major arterial can present potential challenges to pedestrians, due to factors such as long crossing distances across multiple lanes, the high likelihood of turning vehicles, high vehicle volumes and vehicles travelling at high speed. An LPI for all four crossings can be useful in addressing turn conflicts between pedestrians crossing and turning traffic.
Where to Use:
LPI for such crossings should be considered.
Entrance/Exit
Ramp
Major Arterial
111111
------ 11111\ ------
-- -- =1= =1= -- -- -------- --
, 11111 ------ 111111
,..
lb/trans·
Figure 8: Typical intersection of an Entrance/Exit ramp with a major arterial
LPI should be
considered for
all 4 crossings
• •
lb/trans
Guidelines for Implementing
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
REFERENCES
1. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Leading Pedestrian Interval, https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/lead_ped_int/, April 2020.
2. Saneinejad, S., and Lo, J., Leading Pedestrian Interval: Assessment and Implementation Guidelines, In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2519, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2015, pp. 85–94.
3. Goughnour, E., Carter, D., Lyon, C., Persaud, B., Lan, B., Chun, P., Signor, K. (2018), Safety Evaluation of Protected Left Turn Phasing and Leading Pedestrian Intervals on Pedestrian Safety, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-HRT-18-044, Washington, D.C.
4. Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System, FHWA Office of Safety, http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=12 , August 2013.
5. Brewer, M., Murillo, D., Pate, A., Handbook for Designing Roadways for the Aging Population, Report No. FHWA-SA-14-015, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2014.
6. Lin, P.S., Wang, Z., Chen, C., Guo, R., Zhang, Z., Development of Statewide Guidelines for Implementing Leading Pedestrian Intervals in Florida, Report No. BDV25-977-22, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL, 2017.
7. Goughnour, E., Carter, D., Lyon, C., Persaud, B., Lan, B., Chun, P., Signor, K. (2018), Safety Evaluation of Leading Pedestrian Intervals on Pedestrian Safety, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research, Development, and Technology, Report No. FHWAHRT-18-060, Washington, D.C.
8. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Leading Pedestrian Interval Guidelines, April 2017.
9. District Department of Transportation (DDOT) Guidelines on Leading Pedestrian Interval Implementation, Revision 2, August 2018.
10. New York City Department of Transportation Accessible Pedestrian Signals Program Status Report, November 2014.
11. Bushell, M.A., Poole, B.W., Zegeer, C.V., Rodriguez, D.A. (2013) , Costs for pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure improvements: A resource for researchers, engineers, planners and the general public. UNC Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, NC.
California Traffic Control Devices Committee
Agenda Item Report
CTCDC Agenda Item Report Page 1 of 8
Item No. 22-10 November 03, 2022
Meeting Date: November 03, 2022
Item Number: 22-10
From: Stan Slavin, PE, OSD
Sponsored By: Yue Wang, PE, Caltrans Presented By: Michael C. Robinson, PE, Caltrans
Description: Revisions to Pedestrians Intervals and Signal Phases to comply with Assembly Bill AB-2264 (effective January 1, 2023), which includes requirements for leading pedestrian interval and accessible pedestrian signals and detectors at state traffic signals.
Recommendation:
Motion by committee to recommend inclusion of the proposed changes to the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) Section 4E.06 “Pedestrians Intervals and Signal Phases” to comply with Assembly Bill AB-2264 (effective January 1, 2023).
Agency Making Request/Sponsor:
Caltrans / Yue Wang, Caltrans CTCDC Member
Background:
Assembly Bill AB-2264 titled “Pedestrian crossing signals” authored by Bloom (A), Haney (A), and Portantino (S), was approved by Governor and filed with Secretary of State on September 23, 2022.
AB-2264 amends the Vehicle Code Section 21450.5 to require state-owned or operated traffic-actuated signals upon first placement or replacement to include leading pedestrian interval (LPI) with accessible pedestrian signals (APS) and detectors. Existing state-owned or operated traffic-actuated signals will be required by AB-2264 to have leading pedestrian interval installed when maintenance work is performed.
The inclusion of maintenance work is not clear who performs the work. Electrical Maintenance does not adjust signal timing and therefore cannot implement LPI.
Traffic signal timing changes are performed by signal operations who periodically perform field investigations and operational reviews. The CA MUTCD update needs to be clear that maintenance work performed on traffic signals refer to signal operations work.
Requiring LPI to be installed at existing traffic signals without APS contradicts recommendations to accommodate visually impaired pedestrians. The CA MUTCD update needs to be clear that traffic signal locations without APS requiring LPI need to have APS available before enabling LPI.
Attachment 2 - Caltrans Default LPI per AB 2264
California Traffic Control Devices Committee
Agenda Item Report
CTCDC Agenda Item Report Page 2 of 8
Item No. 22-10 November 03, 2022
Refer to the following for more background and information on AB-2264:
1. Text of AB-2264 Pedestrian Crossing Signals:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB22 64 2. AB-2264 Bill Analyses:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220A B2264
3. AB-2264 Today’s Law As Amended:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220 AB2264&showamends=false
Attachments:
Attachment A – AB-2264 Pedestrian Crossing Signals
Attachment B – Proposed Revisions to CA MUTCD Section 4E.06 California Traffic Control Devices Committee
Agenda Item Report
CTCDC Agenda Item Report Page 3 of 8
Item No. 22-10 November 03, 2022
ATTACHMENT A
California Traffic Control Devices Committee
Agenda Item Report
CTCDC Agenda Item Report Page 4 of 8
Item No. 22-10 November 03, 2022
Attachment A – AB-2264 Pedestrian Crossing Signals.
California Traffic Control Devices Committee
Agenda Item Report
CTCDC Agenda Item Report Page 5 of 8
Item No. 22-10 November 03, 2022
California Traffic Control Devices Committee
Agenda Item Report
CTCDC Agenda Item Report Page 6 of 8
Item No. 22-10 November 03, 2022
California Traffic Control Devices Committee
Agenda Item Report
CTCDC Agenda Item Report Page 7 of 8
Item No. 22-10 November 03, 2022
ATTACHMENT B
California Traffic Control Devices Committee
Agenda Item Report
CTCDC Agenda Item Report Page 8 of 8
Item No. 22-10 November 03, 2022
Attachment B – Proposed Revisions to CA MUTCD Section 4E.06.
Standard:
Except as provided in paragraph #, upon the first placement or replacement of a state-owned or operated traffic-actuated signal that is equipped with pedestrian crosswalks, a traffic-actuated signal shall be installed and maintained to have a leading pedestrian interval, and shall include the installation, activation, and maintenance of an accessible pedestrian signal and detector that complies with sections 4E.08 to 4E.13.
Except as provided in paragraph #, existing state-owned or operated traffic-actuated signals shall be configured to include a leading pedestrian interval as part of a field investigation or operational review that are performed on traffic-actuated signals in any of the following areas:
(A) Residential district.
(B) Business district.
(C) Business activity district, as determined by the CVC Section 22358.9. (D) Safety corridor.
(E) School zone.
(F) An area with a high concentration of pedestrians and cyclists, as determined by CVC Section 22358.7.
Existing state-owned and operated traffic actuated signals that require leading pedestrian interval and are not equipped with accessible pedestrian signal and detectors shall be scheduled for upgrade to include accessible pedestrian signal and detectors with leading pedestrian interval.
Support:
State-owned or operated traffic-activated signals that do not have conflicting movements with pedestrians do not require leading pedestrian interval for those movements that are not in conflict. For example, for a Tintersection with a one-way minor street feeding into major street, there would be no conflicting movement from the major street into the minor street, and therefore, no benefit from adding a leading pedestrian interval for the crosswalk on the minor street.